May 10, 2013

A crusade for Jennifer Rubin: "Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this fence!"

Since Jennifer Rubin, who scribes the "Right Turn" column for the Washington Post, is so ardent for immigration in America, I've found a great new cause for her: demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tear down the brand new Israeli border fence that is so effective at keeping out illegal immigrants from Africa:

From the Jewish Press this week:
Netanyahu Views Chinese Wall ‘Security Fence’ 
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara visited the Great Wall of China on Thursday, allowing him to make the obvious comparison with Israel’s security fence, dubbed by leftists as the “Apartheid Wall. 
Unlike the Chinese Great Wall, the “wall” in Israel extends less than 10 percent of the total length of the fortification, the rest of which is a fence. ...
He said the Great Wall inspired him as Israel built the security fence along the southern border with Egypt.

From the Jerusalem Post in January:
PM tours South, heralds completion of border fence 
Netanyahu says fence has achieved primary objectives of stemming the flood of African migrants, defending from Sinai terror.  
By HERB KEINON 
01/02/2013

“There has not been an engineering feat in Israel this large since the days of Herod,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday on a tour of the newly completed 230-km. fence along the Sinai border. 
Netanyahu, who was shepherded through the massive, NIS 1.6 billion project, said the model will now be duplicated on the Golan Heights border with Syria, and later on the country’s eastern frontier. 
“I think that the success here tells us that we need to complete the work on the other borders, and in the future we will close all of Israel’s borders,” he said.
Deputy Chief of Staff Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh said a similar barrier on the frontier with Syria was in the process of being built, and should be finished by the middle of the summer to “preempt the possibility of terrorist attacks against communities on the Golan Heights.” 
Work on the five-meter-high southern fence began in November 2010, and Netanyahu – who is touting the project as one of the major achievements of his current tenure – has taken helicopter visits to various points along the border to gauge the pace of work being done since then. 
On Wednesday, Naveh told Netanyahu, “Mission accomplished.” 
Nevertheless, another 13 km. in mountainous terrain near Eilat still needs to be built. When that is completed in an estimated three months’ time, the long stretch of border from Kerem Shalom, where Sinai and Israel meet the Gaza Strip, to Taba, on the Red Sea, will be sealed. 
Brig.-Gen. Eran Ofir, head of the project, told the prime minister that “just as the Iron Dome defends Israel’s skies, the fence is an iron wall defending Israel’s border.” 
Netanyahu said the fence had two primary objectives. The first was to stop the flood of African migrants into the country, which he said would – had it not been stemmed – have posed a strategic threat to the country. 
The prime minister said that at the height of efforts to infiltrate the border last January, some 2,300 people were making their way across the border each month. That number dropped to 36 in December. 
Just as Israel succeeded in stemming the influx of migrants, he added, it will also succeed in sending those already here back to their lands of origin. There are an estimated 60,000 African migrants here, some 40,000 of them from Eritrea and Sudan, countries to which Israel is unable to deport them.
Netanyahu last month appointed former Mossad official Hagai Hadas to spearhead efforts to send the migrants back home. He did not, however, provide any details on how those efforts were proceeding, or which countries would be willing to take the migrants in. 
The fence’s second objective, Netanyahu said, was to combat terrorist attacks originating from Sinai. ...  
According to Defense Ministry numbers, the new fence was built with 45,000 tons of steel, and enough earth was moved during construction to fill 1.67 million trucks. 
Some 100 contractors were involved in the project, employing more than 1,000 people who – at times – worked around the clock to finish ahead of deadline. 
The Defense Ministry said the fence was attracting interest from other countries facing similar challenges from illegal infiltration, smuggling and terrorism. The barrier includes the 5-meter steel fence itself, as well as a more rudimentary barbed wire fence in front of it, a sand road for tracking, a patrol path, and communications infrastructure including information collection points, cameras and state-of-the art radar.

As I've been saying for years, there is much that Americans can learn from Israel.

So, Jennifer, when are you going to get busy on Israel's anti-immigrationism?

86 comments:

john marzan said...

israel needs a fence to stop the terrorists. mexican migrant workers arent terrorists.

but i'd take rubin more seriously if she advocates "right of return" for palestinians. israel is occupying "stolen land" right (from palestinians POV)?

Average Joe said...

The problem is that when white Christians learn from Israel they get condemn as racists by the Jews.

Average Joe said...

israel needs a fence to stop the terrorists. mexican migrant workers arent terrorists.

Most of the people being stopped by the Israeli fence are not terrorists but refugees trying to escape poverty and violence in Africa.

Anonymous said...

I personally wish she'd try charging the fence, from the outside, sporting a stylish keffiyeh to cover her Adam's apple and man jaw.

-The Judean People's Front

john marzan said...

"Most of the people being stopped by the Israeli fence are not terrorists but refugees trying to escape poverty and violence in Africa. "

agreed.

Anonymous said...

israel needs a fence to stop the terrorists. mexican migrant workers arent terrorists.

I didn't know terrorist acts in Israel are committed by people crossing their southern border.

Are they common?

Steve Sailer said...

Read what Netanyahu said in the article:

"Netanyahu said the fence had two primary objectives. The first was to stop the flood of African migrants into the country ...

"The fence’s second objective, Netanyahu said, was to combat terrorist attacks originating from Sinai. ... "

His first priority is stopping economic immigrants.

Anonymous said...

Jennifer Ruben is an American columnist writing about immigration policy for the US. Why are you connecting her views and policy with whats going on in Israel?

Also, Israel is a very small country. They need to protect their borders more vigilantly than the US needs to.

Brett_McS said...

Hmmm, a government that doesn't hate and actively seek to replace its own people.

Anonymous said...

Perfectly fair question. Except Ms Rubin will make an exception for a Jewish state. Open states can go to hell, no doubt. Funny that.

Aaron Gross said...

I don't know what Rubin would answer (I don't read her, because I don't think she's very bright), but here's what she could answer: Israel and the US are different states and have different characters and different constitutions; see Joseph de Maistre on that. Hispanic immigration is good for America, but Arab and sub-Saharan immigration would be bad for Israel.

That's a reasonable and non-hypocritical response. It's wrong, of course: mass Hispanic immigration is obviously bad for America. But most immigration advocates don't believe that it's bad. They're wrong, but necessarily hypocritical.

Dennis Dale said...

Read what Netanyahu said in the article:

"Netanyahu said the fence had two primary objectives. The first was to stop the flood of African migrants into the country ...

"The fence’s second objective, Netanyahu said, was to combat terrorist attacks originating from Sinai. ... "

His first priority is stopping economic immigrants


Looking forward to her excoriation of Binyi for knowing nothing-ha!-nothing about economics.

Dave Pinsen said...

Meet the latest soi-disant conservative (former Cato Institute adjunct) to be hired by the Washington Post, Timothy B. Lee. To get a sense of where he stands on immigration, see this tweet of his from last week.

If you dig around in his feed you can find my correspondence with him about some ridiculous Matt Yglesias piece about how bringing illegals "out of the shadows" would boost the economy because, once legal, they would be able to go to a bank and "get a loan to start or grow a business".

Simon in London said...

I think it's great that the Israelis are securing (part of) the Holy Land for European Civilisation. Unfortunately I suspect it might be the last surviving part of European Civilisation!

Simon in London said...

Aaron Gross:
" Israel and the US are different states and have different characters and different constitutions"

Is the difference that Israel is explicitly founded as a Jewish state (which allows non-Jews, in a secondary role) whereas America was not founded as a white Christian state? So America has to let everyone in? But the Founders said they were seeking to secure their own Posterity, not creating a suicide pact. I'm pretty sure the original intent of America was that it should operate primarily to the benefit of the ex-British colonial founding stock, with non-white-British allowed, but in a secondary role. So not that different from Israel.

Anonymous said...

Donate to make Israel more vibrant:

ASSAF - Aid Organization for Refugees and Asylum Seekers
http://www.israelgives.org/amuta/580474955

The Hotline for Migrant Workers
http://www.hotline.org.il/english/index.htm

Anonymous said...

> are not terrorists but refugees trying
>to escape poverty and violence in Africa.

doesn't simple (non-terrorist) ethnic crime take the same toll on society?
just had this idea: terrorism is ethnic crime the PTB decide something should be done about.

Dave Pinsen said...

BTW, more from Jennifer Rubin. Apparently, she corresponded with Borjas via email, the contents of which she shares there.

Kind of odd how Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Steve Sailer seem to be defending Richwine's thesis more vigorously than Borjas, who signed off on it. Borjas ought to address this publicly, rather than via email to Rubin anyway.

Maxwell Power said...

I think the implied parallel would just fly over her head--too subtle. That hasn't normally been my reaction to any of your ideas before

Anonymous said...

So why would black Africans want to immigrate to Israel? They are living under black rule, something that Africans dreamed of for centuries. It has to be utopia.

Or maybe their slogan is, "Africa for Africans, Israel for Africans, Europe for Africans, America for Africans, etc."

Anonymous said...

In the following clip, Jewish leader Barbara Lerner Spectre boasts on Israeli television that Jews play a "leading role” in the imposition of multiculturalism on the people of Scandinavia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

Let's take her statement in the YouTube link and modify it for Israel:

"I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time [Israel] has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think [non-Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. [Israel] is not going to be the monolithic societ[y] [it] once [was] in the last century. [Non-]Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for [Israel] to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and [Non-]Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role [for non-Jews] and without that transformation, [Israel] will not survive."

FWIW, her organization, Paideia, sees its role as creating a multicultural state led by people who think like her. When the people of Sweden hesitated to give Paideia more money, their government came under immense pressure from the US State Department and American Jewish groups. Swedish tax dollars now fund her organization's efforts to supplant the indigenous cultures of Scandinavia; organizations partially funded by US and EU taxpayers have also supported her efforts.

Up to My A$$ in Mexicans said...

"Also, Israel is a very small country. They need to protect their borders more vigilantly than the US needs to."

I call BS on this! I'm in a small city in the upper South. In 1970 we had no Mexicans. Now we have 20,000. Israel's illegal immigration problem pales in comparison with mine. How many more Mexican restaurants do I need? Build a fence, already!

Aaron Gross said...

Hi, Simon, glad to see your reply. I'm talking about the current constitution of the US, not about the founding. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be horrified at mass Hispanic immigration, just as they'd have been horrified by the mass immigration of Norwegians, Germans, Jews, Irish, Bohemians, Poles, etc. a century ago. One difference between those two waves of immigration is that in the earlier wave, the US was still, implicitly, a state of Anglo-Saxons.

If someone were supporting, say, mass German immigration to the USA two centuries ago while opposing Sudanese immigration into the State of Israel (supposing it existed then), then you might have a good charge of hypocrisy or double standards. That's because the USA was (were) a federation of states of Englishmen, similar to Israel as a state of the Jews. The former was constituted as such implicitly, the latter explicitly.

Today the US is a "nation of immigrants." Like it or not, that's what it's been since before any of us were born. It's not a state of Englishmen or of Anglo-Saxons or of whites. Whatever it was in 1787, it ain't that anymore.

That's the (lower-case "c") constitutional reason it's neither hypocritical nor a double standard to support mass Hispanic immigration into the US and to oppose mass non-Jewish immigration into Israel.

SFG said...

"I'm pretty sure the original intent of America was that it should operate primarily to the benefit of the ex-British colonial founding stock, with non-white-British allowed, but in a secondary role. So not that different from Israel."

I had the sense there was some vaguely-Christian idea about creating a 'city on a hill' everyone would look up to, mixed with then-fashionable ideas about Enlightenment and such. Probably they figured they'd have mostly white Europeans and could make a new nation out of that--'e pluribus unum' etc. They were right about that as long as it was restricted to that population.

I actually think we could turn the Hispanics into Americans, if not high-achieving ones. Our brand, so to speak, still has value internationally, particularly in less affluent parts of the world. The problem is that we're not trying anymore--there's this multiculti 'celebrate diversity' junk.

DCThrowback said...

There is no one as tone-deaf as Jennifer Rubin. Here is one writer who could stand to learn something for her critics, but because she is protected on high by the prince of darkness from her wonderful perch at WaPo, she will never ever change. What a disgrace.

Cail Corishev said...

I don't know what Rubin would answer (I don't read her, because I don't think she's very bright), but here's what she could answer: Israel and the US are different states and have different characters and different constitutions; see Joseph de Maistre on that. Hispanic immigration is good for America, but Arab and sub-Saharan immigration would be bad for Israel.

Except that they don't just claim that Hispanic immigration is good for America; they claim that all immigration is good for America, by definition. Mexican fruit pickers, Indian coders, Somali refugees on welfare -- they're all good for America because diversity is strength and we're a nation of immigrants and this generation's immigrants are guaranteed to become the next's producers and leaders. When they're talking about America (or Western Europe), there's no such thing as a bad immigrant.

That's impossible to reconcile with support for Israel's very sensible immigration control. That's a useful comparison to make when talking to middle-Americans who tend to think favorably toward Israel. Point out to them that there is one country that tightly controls its borders, and our elites consider that entirely moral, so we're not necessarily horrid racists for wanting to control ours.

Anonymous said...

"As I've been saying for years, there is much that Americans can learn from Israel."

American policy is premised on the same agenda as the one in Israel: what is good for the Jews?

In Israel, Jews are the majority and they wanna keep it that way for the sake of Jewish power.

In America, Jews wanna break the backbone of white majority power so that it will never challenge Jewish elite minority power.

So, even if US policy seems outwardly different from Israel's, it's inner logic is the same.
Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Israelis use the same playbook and agree on the lessons of power: where you're the majority elite, make sure your kind remain the majority; where you're the minority elite, undermine the power of the majority that might rise up to challenge your power.

After all, British policy was different at home and in India, but both served to maximize Anglo power. On that note, the Brits were being consistent than hypocritical.
It's like the defense of your team plays differently from the offense of your team in football. The offense tries to score as much as possible whereas the defense tries to prevent scoring as much as possible. But the objective of both is to make YOUR TEAM win.
Who in his right mind would say the defense should take the lesson from the offense and allow lots of scoring? When the defense allows scoring, it's the OTHER TEAM that benefits.

All nations are ruled by elites. America and Israel are both ruled by Jews, and the only lesson both care about is 'what is good for the Jews?'

Jews think gentiles exist to serve Jews, just like homos think straight people exist to serve to serve homos. Both groups see themselves as special and 'more evolved'.

And both are unremittingly vicious because they are minorities. As with a lion tamer working with lots of lions, they feel they must constantly intimidate us as to remind us who's the real boss cuz we might stop obeying and rebel(like the Hindus finally did against the Brits).

http://youtu.be/HbsIlsOlFtA?t=2m13s

Anonymous said...

I ran across a comment somewhere that posited the reason McCain wants immigration so much is that he sees it as necessary for the US to be a "great nation." IOW, our population is too small to stay on top of China, India, Brazil, etc.

That got me wondering if the reason so many Israel fanatic Jews want lots of immigration to the US is that they see it as necessary for the US to continue to be Israel's protector.

ben tillman said...

Jennifer Ruben [sic] is an American columnist writing about immigration policy for the US. Why are you connecting her views and policy with whats going on in Israel?

That's the point. She's writing about US immigration policy.

And not writing about Israeli policy.

If her advocacy of mass immigration for the US had any sort of principled basis, she wouldn't waste her time with US policy. She'd attack the "racist" policy of Israel.

But it's a matter of particularism, not principle, so she supports closed borders in Israel and attacks them in the US.

Also, Israel is a very small country. They need to protect their borders more vigilantly than the US needs to.

That is insultingly stupid.

Anonymous said...

In Israel... keep out the African and Muslim barbarians.

In the US... tame the white gentile barbarians.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKr0VKFozuE

Tame and shame.

pat said...

There is now and has long been a lot of nonsense about the Great Wall of China.

Ripley of "Ripley's Believe it or Not" claimed that it was the only human artifact that could be seen from space. In fact most of it can't be seen from ground level when you are standing right beside it.

Qin Shihuangdi the first emperor consolidated other walls as he consolidated other territories. This was about 220 BC. These walls were packed earth. The Romans at about the same time were building the Limes in much the same manner.

All of these early earth based walls have more or less reverted back to dirt after being out in the rain for 2,000 years. The original walls can't usually be seen from ground level. You have to go up in a plane to see their traces.

The wall that Nixon trod and tourists visit isn't ancient at all. It was built by the Ming up until the early seventeenth century. Shakespeare was writing when that impressive stone wall was built.

In fact the mere fact of such a vertical stone wall dispels another Chinese myth. The myth that the Chinese invented gunpowder.

In the West the Gunpowder Revolution radically changed the kind of walls built. Charles the Eighth invaded Italy with cannon and knocked down all the high walled forts and walls. That instituted a rapid revolution in military architecture. The year was 1493. A century later China built a wall adequate for the cross bow bolts that the northern Mongols and Jurchen used but totally inadequate against invaders with cannon.

The only sophisticated defensive wall built in ancient times was Hadrian's Wall. This might still serve as a model for a wall on our southern border. It was built with state of the art construction methods and materials. It had a permanent border force who lived in towns next to the periodic forts.

America spends a lot on defense. We need a garrison force as much as we need rapid deployment troops. The Romans had both.

Albertosaurus

Chicago said...

It's sort of curious that people from Sudan and Eritrea end up in Israel. Are the Egyptians and others helping them pass through so as to cause the Israelis problems? If the migrants agreed to study and convert to the state religion would they then be allowed to stay?Since a portion of the Sudanese and Eritreans would likely be Muslim couldn't they find employment in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, countries that hire a lot of foreign labor? The African and Arab world is very large yet they can't find a place to stay and work there, they have to head for Israel. Or Europe.

Svigor said...

“There has not been an engineering feat in Israel this large since the days of Herod,”

I know how he feels. Whenever I see the autobahn, I tell anyone who'll listen, "there has not been an engineering feat in Germany this large since the days of Hitler."

Yair Naveh said a similar barrier on the frontier with Syria was in the process of being built, and should be finished by the middle of the summer to “preempt the possibility of terrorist attacks against communities on the Golan Heights.”

Nah. It's going up to preempt immigration of "cognitively elite," competitive, high-IQ Chinamen, Indians, and Latinos.

israel needs a fence to stop the terrorists. mexican migrant workers arent terrorists.

but i'd take rubin more seriously if she advocates "right of return" for palestinians. israel is occupying "stolen land" right (from palestinians POV)?


But the Israeli fence will also stop people who aren't terrorists, like all the high-IQ Chinese, Indians, and Latinos who could turn Israel into an economic paradise. Which is its purpose, since Israel doesn't allow immigration of high-IQ Chinese, Indians, and Latinos.

I guess Israeli Jews must be stupid?

Similarly, a fence on America's southern border would stop terrorists, who aren't Mexican criminal infiltrators.

Most of the people being stopped by the Israeli fence are not terrorists but refugees trying to escape poverty and violence in Africa.

Many of the people being stopped by Israeli immigration policy are not terrorists or refugees, but high-IQ "cognitive elites" from China, India, Latin America, etc; people who would turn Israel into an economic paradise, were they allowed to immigrate.

Jennifer Ruben is an American columnist writing about immigration policy for the US. Why are you connecting her views and policy with whats going on in Israel?

Jennifer Rubin is a Jew and a Zionist who strongly supports Israel. Her (at least tacit) support for Israeli policy of denying entry to "cognitive elites" at the same time she supports high levels of immigration for America has obvious "connections" already.

Also, Israel is a very small country. They need to protect their borders more vigilantly than the US needs to.

Nonsense. There's plenty of room in Israel. If there wasn't, the Israelis would have stopped the Orthodox Jews from breeding like rabbits by now.

Israel and the US are different states and have different characters and different constitutions; see Joseph de Maistre on that. Hispanic immigration is good for America, but Arab and sub-Saharan immigration would be bad for Israel.

Right, she'd probably try special pleading first.

So, let's all agree that Arab and sub-Saharan immigration would be bad for Israel.

Let's also agree that high-IQ immigration from China, India, Latin America, etc., would be very, very good for Israel. But they don't allow it. What are they, a bunch of racists?

I think it's great that the Israelis are securing (part of) the Holy Land for European Civilisation. Unfortunately I suspect it might be the last surviving part of European Civilisation!

Bibi says: "feature, not bug!"

Svigor said...

"I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time [Israel] has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think [non-Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. [Israel] is not going to be the monolithic societ[y] [it] once [was] in the last century. [Non-]Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for [Israel] to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and [Non-]Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role [for non-Jews] and without that transformation, [Israel] will not survive."

Sounds like a plan. Seriously, this is the duty of every White "gentile" in the world.

Point out to them that there is one country that tightly controls its borders, and our elites consider that entirely moral, so we're not necessarily horrid racists for wanting to control ours.

ANTI-SEMITE!!!

So, even if US policy seems outwardly different from Israel's, it's inner logic is the same.

Yes and no. Jewish policy for Israel is pro-Israe. Jewish policy for America is anti-America.

It's sort of curious that people from Sudan and Eritrea end up in Israel. Are the Egyptians and others helping them pass through so as to cause the Israelis problems? If the migrants agreed to study and convert to the state religion would they then be allowed to stay?Since a portion of the Sudanese and Eritreans would likely be Muslim couldn't they find employment in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, countries that hire a lot of foreign labor? The African and Arab world is very large yet they can't find a place to stay and work there, they have to head for Israel. Or Europe.

Sounds like you don't want to turn Israel into a paradise via high-IQ, "cognitively elite" immigration to Israel.

The very fact that Israel isn't run by high-IQ "cognitive elites" from China, India, Latin America, etc., shows that most Israelis agree with you.

We've got to change this. Israelis deserve to live in a paradise, just like the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Chicago said...

"It's sort of curious that people from Sudan and Eritrea end up in Israel. Are the Egyptians and others helping them pass through so as to cause the Israelis problems?"

No. Egyptians despise African, especially Sudanese, and kill them frequently.

Most of Egypt is an uninhabited desert. 95% of Egyptians live within ten miles of the Nile River. African migrants trek across the wasteland without being bothered because nobody wants to guard that god-forsaken expanse of fiery death. This problem has only intensified since the fall of Mubarak.

riches said...

Commenter Chicago wonders about the allure of Europe for Sudanese and Eritreans?

How about the same reason for integrating Ole Miss? Dat where the white women are at,

Anonymous said...

Today the US is a "nation of immigrants."

Quite a few of us Americans would be surprised to learn that we are immigrants.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

Today the US is a "nation of immigrants."

BS. America is a nation of Americans. Some have immigrant forebears, some have settler forebears (e.g, original Anglo Saxons", and some have indigenous forebears.

And even if your claim were true, just because all Americans are immigrants (which they are not, I'm American and I'm not an immigrant, for example, thereby proving your entire thesis false), does not mean all immigrants (or would be immigrants) are Americans.

So we've got two flagrant fallacies with this Nation of Immigrants nonsense.

1) America is not a nation of immigrants, since most of the people here are not immigrants.

2) Even if it were true, it would be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Just because at some point we welcomed in a lot of immigrants that means that anyone/anywhere/anytime (for eternity) that wishes to immigrate to the U.S. has some special irrevocable right granted upon them?

We were a nation of slaveholders. That ended. We were a nation of male voters. That ended. We were a nation of essentially no immigration 1924-1965, that ended. On and on, except "nation of immigrants" seem to have perpetual tenure.

Now, for your Israel exceptionalism. Were there such a thing as "nation of immigrants", Israel would probably be right up there at the top of the list. Apart from the (non-existent) Palestinianians, probably a vanishingly small percentage of the "real" Israelis, you know, the first class ones, descend from anyone who hasn't migrated there post-zionist movement.

Anything you say about "nation of immigrants' should be applied in spades to Israel.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

I actually think we could turn the Hispanics into Americans, if not high-achieving ones.

We actually did exactly that until the current tsunami of illegals.

Anonymous said...

BTW, more from Jennifer Rubin. Apparently, she corresponded with Borjas via email, the contents of which she shares there.

Rubin writes:

"Make no mistake: This is the argument against all immigration. It’s a school of thought, as the New York Times noted. But it is also highly controversial and not at all conservative. Conservatives believe people are assets and, through their labors, improve themselves and their countrymen. In fact, conservative economists believe, as do the bulk of labor economists — and the Heritage Foundation itself up through 2006 — that immigration is a net benefit."

How is that a "conservative" view? That sounds like a fundamentally Marxist view. People are mere "assets" to be used for their labor power. I'm sure, though, that in her mind there is at least one exception - one group of people that aren't mere "assets" defined by their labor power.

It's supremacism.

Anonymous said...

once legal, they would be able to go to a bank and "get a loan to start or grow a business".

The gang of eight's list of lies grows longer. The failure of the amendment to secure the border in the Senate proves the Senate Republicans want to keep the cheap illegal labor flowing after the amnesty.

Aaron Gross said...

@SFG, the image of a "city on the hill everyone would look up to," if you mean "look up to" as in "admire," was an image created by Peggy Noonan, or whoever it was who wrote Reagan's speech. John Winthrop's image of a "city upon a hill" was of a city nakedly visible to the whole world. The message was, we'd better not screw this thing up, or we'll be the abomination of the entire world.

I think maybe the Puritan image that you're thinking of is America as a "New Israel" or "New Canaan."

I agree 100% with what you said about turning Hispanics into Americans. I'd go even further: Ideally, we would be trying to turn them into whites. This is analogous to the process of "Magyarization" of ethnic minorities in Hungary in the 19th century.

Magyarization doesn't get talked about much on the "nativist right," but I think maybe it should. It's kind of like David Starkey's vision of a multiracial English nation. Obviously it would be politically impossible today - even advocating assimilation is verboten - but the nativist right isn't concerned with pragmatism.

There's a parallel to Israel here, too. American mestizos could theoretically be "whitified," but African-Americans could not. In Israel, "Russian" Gentiles could be Jewified, but Arabs could not. I'd like to see the Magyarization (mutatis mutandis) of both America and Israel.

Anonymous said...

America is in fact the Israel of white people.

The Left will do anything to tear down that notion.

Anon.

Mr. Anon said...

Aaron Gross said...

"I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be horrified at mass Hispanic immigration, just as they'd have been horrified by the mass immigration of Norwegians, Germans, Jews, Irish, Bohemians, Poles, etc. a century ago."

They would have been more horrified by a wave of mestizos than of a wave of germans, bohemians, etc.

"One difference between those two waves of immigration is that in the earlier wave, the US was still, implicitly, a state of Anglo-Saxons."

And prior to 1965, the US was implicitly a nation of Europeans. So now, that will be destroyed too. A lot of jews don't seem particularly worried about that. Perhaps that is what invites the charge of hypocrisy. Well, that AND the hypocrisy.

"Today the US is a "nation of immigrants." Like it or not, that's what it's been since before any of us were born. It's not a state of Englishmen or of Anglo-Saxons or of whites. Whatever it was in 1787, it ain't that anymore."

Your sophistry aside, it is deeply hypocritical for Rubin, and others like her, to make the claim that immigration is swell for us, but not for Israel.

FirkinRidiculous said...

Wonder what sort of neighbourhood Rubin lives in. It'd be great if some waggish amateur film-maker was to hire himself a band of itinerant immigrants of various hues and set up camp and play merry hell in the immediate locales of the rich and famous of the pro-immigration lobby. That alone would be worth the price of a subscription to YouTube.

Matthew said...

"That's a reasonable and non-hypocritical response. It's wrong, of course: mass Hispanic immigration is obviously bad for America. But most immigration advocates don't believe that it's bad. They're wrong, but [not] necessarily hypocritical."

No, I will assume it is hypocritical unless they prove otherwise.

Many racial and ethnic minorities in this country - Jews, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, Latinos, etc. - think of their ethnic homelands and the USA in the same manner they distinguish their personal homes from a shopping mall or business district. Israel (etc.) is their home, while America is merely a place they go to conduct business.

Their generally dismal rates of military service reflect the fact that they see America as little more than a place to make money. Asians, Jews, and Muslims have extremely dismal rates of military service.

Sheila said...

I cannot be the only reader who finds Aron Gross's comments irrational, tautological, and insultingly ethnocentric.

Dennis Dale said...

Why isn't Jennifer lecturing Likud about the importance of the growing Arab-Isreali vote? How you just can't deport millions of illegals. And of course, about the opportunity cost of turning away all that labor!

I thought it would be a good idea to help Jennifer out (she's all out of energy after fixing America's immigration policies and has none left over for Israel) and take some of her terrific work on the subject of American immigration and simply swap out American institutions and people with their Israeli counterparts--somebody was doing just that in another comment thread.

But you know what? It doesn't work. She's taken precautions. It only looks like Jennifer is glib and careless. In fact her writing is so devoid of substantive arguments it cannot be turned inside out to reveal the hypocrisy. She'll never be caught under the surface of the water, analyzing or defending rationales, assumptions, effects, feasibility. Just like in the sacking of Richwine--there will be no details. Richwine and his Harvard study don't have the right to be refuted. Nobody wants to go there, and they don't have to, thank God.

Ms Rubin's work is all handicapping--play-by-play and color commentary on how well this or that project is proceeding; something Sailer has been talking about recently.
A typical column reads like a film review that just recaps plot. Or, like the "Plot" section of a Wikipedia article about a movie for that matter. For Jennifer, all has been written, now it's just spreading the faith by the word, sword and smear.

Jennifer is "stupid"? Ha! To quote Homer Simpson, stupid like a fox!

Harry Baldwin said...

As part of his new "get tough" policy on illegal immigration, why doesn't Marco Rubio say something about sanctuary cities. We've seen the federal government sue to stop states from enforcing immigration law, will it ever sue those locales that flout it?

Also, if it's so important to give amnesty to illegals so that they "don't have to live in the shadows," shouldn't the government also give amnesty to tax-dodgers, student-loan delinquents, and deadbeat dads? How about all those people with outstanding warrants for parking or traffic violations? I mean, those people have to live in the shadows too, and they're Americans. Shouldn't they get a chance to make a clean start? (I just saw a cop show where a guy ticketed for fishing without a license was arrested and taken away in handcuffs because records showed he had an unpaid parking ticket.)

Mr. Anon said...

"Sheila said...

I cannot be the only reader who finds Aron Gross's comments irrational, tautological, and insultingly ethnocentric."

No, you are not the only one. Although I would not characterize them as irrational. There is indeed a rationale behind them, and it serves the ethnocentric part that you observed.

Whiskey said...

Jennifer Rubin would enthusiastically endorse open borders for Israel. Many SWPL Jews have. Even in or especially in Israel. Heck the comment above notes the woman in Israel saying how Israel will be diverse, multicultural. That's basically spitting in the face of Zionism. She herself wants Israel to be like Sweden, multicultural, with Jews a minority.

This is SWPL disease. Basically the female-driven HATE HATE HATE for ordinary White guys. Yes if Richwine was more Alpha, he could get away with it. John Mayer noted his penis has a "hood pass" from Black women though he did not find them attractive. He got away with it. Why? HE IS JOHN MAYER! If Richwine was famous, "sexy/dominant" and an uber-asshole like say, Sasha Baron Cohen or Russell Brand, he could get away with it. Heck Marco Rubio reduced Gillian Tett of the FT to pure jelly -- and he's an idiot. Just read what Tett wrote about Rubio, its teen girl crush time.

Yeah most SWPL women really HATE the unsexy men of their class and particularly below them, and want them exterminated essentially. There is nothing so furious as women finding their men lacking in sexual appeal. Bad behavior, beatings, murders, more, that's nothing to the penalty men pay for being non-sexy to their women. That's the only sin they won't forgive. That's pretty much IMHO what drives most of this.

Israel has it, you can find on the net all sorts of stuff by Israelis (mostly SWPL women) on how they HATE HATE HATE the "racist" working class Jews who want closed borders. Its just the survival mechanism is close because Israel has no margin for error like big countries have. That's it.

Anonymous said...

Some important history that you don't see cited ever in the Zionist-controlled media...

King Crane Commission Report recommendations on the situation in Palestine in 1919

E. We recommend, in the fifth place, serious modification of the extreme Zionist programme for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish state.

(1) The Commissioner began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favour, but the actual facts in Palestine, coupled with the force of the general principles proclaimed by the Allies and accepted by the Syrians have driven them to the recommendation here made.

(2) The Commission was abundantly supplied with literature on the Zionist programme by the Zionist Commission to Palestine; heard in conferences much concerning the Zionist colonies and their claims; and personally saw something of what had been accomplished. They found much to approve in the aspirations and plans of the Zionists, and had warm appreciation for the devotion of many of the colonists, and for their success, by modern methods, in overcoming great natural obstacles.

(3) The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour’s often quoted statement, in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favouring “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified. For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete disposition of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase....

Link to report

Anonymous said...

King Crane Commission Report recommendations on the situation in Palestine in 1919 (cont'd):

In his address, of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great “ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting”: “The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material Interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.” If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine-tenths of the whole emphatically against the entire Zionist programme. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people’s rights, though it kept within the forms of law. It is to be noted also that the feeling against the Zionist programme is not confined to Palestine...
...

The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the programme. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist programme, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions requiring armies to carry out are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of serious injustices.

Link to report

Harry Baldwin said...

Jennifer is "stupid"? Ha! To quote Homer Simpson, stupid like a fox!

This is the first time in her life anyone has called Jennifer Rubin a fox.

In the "Left Coast--Right Coast" podcasts she does with Mickey Kaus, which I stopped watching once they started charging for them, Kaus, from the "left," was always more sensible than Rubin. I suspect Kaus accepts HBD to some extent, as in a year-end Blogging Heads program with Robert Wright (even MORE insufferable than Rubin), Kaus expressed as his greatest worry the possibility that racial differences would indisputably be proven scientifically correct.

Anonymous said...

"Sheila said...
I cannot be the only reader who finds Aron Gross's comments irrational, tautological, and insultingly ethnocentric."

Yes ... you are not ... but in the past some of his comments have been more depressingly ethnocentric than others.

In fact, the substantive quality of his comments appear to have recently slightly improved...

at least he is not lecturing us Goys on what to read or not read like he did a couple of months ago...

Anonymous said...

I've liked Aaron Gross, at least kept an open mind about him, from what I've read of him in recent months and thought of him as well meaning and possibly "one of us," Scots Irish or not.

His comment in this thread that "America is a nation of immigrants," however, raises a serious red flag.

Anonymous said...

There's a parallel to Israel here, too. American mestizos could theoretically be "whitified," but African-Americans could not. In Israel, "Russian" Gentiles could be Jewified, but Arabs could not. I'd like to see the Magyarization (mutatis mutandis) of both America and Israel.

Arabs are close to Jews genetically. There's no reason they couldn't be "Jewified".

Simon in London said...

"Aaron Gross said...
Hi, Simon, glad to see your reply. I'm talking about the current constitution of the US, not about the founding. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be horrified at mass Hispanic immigration, just as they'd have been horrified by the mass immigration of Norwegians, Germans, Jews, Irish, Bohemians, Poles, etc. a century ago. One difference between those two waves of immigration is that in the earlier wave, the US was still, implicitly, a state of Anglo-Saxons.

If someone were supporting, say, mass German immigration to the USA two centuries ago while opposing Sudanese immigration into the State of Israel (supposing it existed then), then you might have a good charge of hypocrisy or double standards. That's because the USA was (were) a federation of states of Englishmen, similar to Israel as a state of the Jews. The former was constituted as such implicitly, the latter explicitly.

Today the US is a "nation of immigrants." Like it or not, that's what it's been since before any of us were born. It's not a state of Englishmen or of Anglo-Saxons or of whites. Whatever it was in 1787, it ain't that anymore.

That's the (lower-case "c") constitutional reason it's neither hypocritical nor a double standard to support mass Hispanic immigration into the US and to oppose mass non-Jewish immigration into Israel."

The US Constitution has not changed, just as the Constitution of Israel has not changed. Incidentally Founding Stock Americans only became a minority some time in the 1990s.

However even if the US Constitution seeks to protect the 'posterity' only of current citizens rather than the founding stock, that would not argue for continuing mass immigration, since that immigration is harming most of the current citizenry.

Anyway, I'm in favour of groups seeking to protect their own interests (within reason - no to Hutu genocide of Tutsis, yes to restricting non-Jewish immigration to Israel) so I don't mind that you're 'ethnocentric' as some commenter said above. All ethnies need to be somewhat ethnocentric to survive. But your argument seems disingenuous to me.

Anonymous said...

Anyway, I'm in favour of groups seeking to protect their own interests (within reason - no to Hutu genocide of Tutsis, yes to restricting non-Jewish immigration to Israel)

Therefore also yes Palestinian Gentiles possessing citizenship rights in Israel? And yes to Palestinian refugees reclaiming their land in Israel?

Anonymous said...

Arabs are close to Jews genetically. There's no reason they couldn't be "Jewified".

Because Judaism is a faith, it should be easy for everyone to be Jewified. You've just got to believe.

Discard said...

A Jew is the child of a Jewish woman, by Jewish definition. So, all Jewish Israeli women should bear the children of these immigrants and bring them inside the tent. End of problem.

NOTA said...

Anon 3:39

Perhaps it's more useful to evaluate and engage with arguments than decide who's on your team, or who you do and don't like?

Amreica and Israel are very different countries, so it's not all that unlikely that the best immigration policy for the two countries is different. But the US in 2013 is also a very different country than the US in 1880, so again, it's quite possible for the right immigration policy to be different now than then.

There is a certain thread of pro-immigration argument that implies that it's immoral or racist to want to keep the country as it is, or to turn away some immigrants and let in others. And that is where the example of Israel is interesting, because they're doing exactly that.

Anon87 said...

When it comes to the Richwine situation:

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

-H.P. Lovecraft

Anonymous said...

Wow, sorry. The only thing that caught my eye was 1.6 billion dollars for 230 km of fence. That's over $2000 a foot. That must be some fence. I think the Chinese could have built another "Great Wall" for considerably less. Imagine, the security problem solved and a new middle eastern tourist attraction all at once.

Harry Baldwin said...

The only thing that caught my eye was 1.6 billion dollars for 230 km of fence. That's over $2000 a foot.

I wonder how much of that we're paying for.

Aaron Gross said...

@Simon, maybe I used the word "constitution" wrong. Note that I'm talking about lower-case "c" constitution, not the US Constitution. I meant is that the USA was not a "nation of immigrants" at its founding - it was a "settler state," like Israel - but it has been a "nation of immigrants" for the last few decades at least, even if the founding stock remained a numerical majority.

I'm using "nation of immigrants" in its usual meaning, but without all the usual sentimentality. Among other things, it means that the US is not now the state of any ethnie, Anglo-Saxon or otherwise. Arguably, it's now more likely for a Hispanic immigrant to become a "true" American than for a hypothetical Arab immigrant to Israel to become a Jew.

I think that Steve Sailer's reading of "posterity" is tendentious - the context is about securing the blessings of liberty - but I don't want to get into that. Even accepting that tendentious reading, it's about securing the liberty of founding-stock Anglo-Saxons, not about securing their position as some 19th-century-style Staatvolk, as the Israeli constitution is about Jews as a Staatvolk.

By the way, my remarks about David Starkey and Magyarization were sort of directed to you.

Anonymous said...

The only thing that caught my eye was 1.6 billion dollars for 230 km of fence. That's over $2000 a foot.

I wonder how much of that we're paying for.


All of it. Welfare transfers from the United States to Israel are on the order of $5 billion per annum.

Anonymous said...

Amereica and Israel are very different countries, so it's not all that unlikely that the best immigration policy for the two countries is different.

When pretty much every human (and other animal) group on the planet, throughout history, has opposed invasion of its habitat by alien organisms, it's actually EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that mass immigration is good for one nation and yet not good for another. To put it more bluntly: It is extremely unlikely that mass immigration is good for ANY human group.

Anonymous said...

Among other things, it means that the US is not now the state of any ethnie, Anglo-Saxon or otherwise.

Aaron, what do you mean when you say a country is "of" a certain ethnie. That is vague to the point of unintelligible.

Anonymous said...

Even accepting that tendentious reading, it's about securing the liberty of founding-stock Anglo-Saxons, not about securing their position as some 19th-century-style Staatvolk, as the Israeli constitution is about Jews as a Staatvolk.

No, it's about securing the Blessings of liberty to posterity, which is arguably broader. It was about securing their position on that territory, just as with Israel.

"Liberty" can be read as independence. Same as with Israel.

In any event, I don't know what your point is--how is this relevant to our desire to protect our borders?

Anonymous said...

"Jennifer Ruben is an American columnist writing about immigration policy for the US. Why are you connecting her views and policy with whats going on in Israel?"

Jewish pundits in the MSM promote unlimited mass immigration and diversity i.e. national disintegration, for every nation except Israel.

This is plainly a hostile act against the majority population of those nations.

Anonymous said...

Jewish pundits in the MSM promote unlimited mass immigration and diversity i.e. national disintegration, for every nation except Israel.

This is plainly a hostile act against the majority population of those nations.


Well said.

Anonymous said...

"Amereica and Israel are very different countries, so it's not all that unlikely that the best immigration policy for the two countries is different."

But Jews want the same open door policy for EACH AND EVERY EUROPEAN NATION no matter different they are from one another.

Aaron Gross said...

In response to two more comments that were not stupid:

When I say that a state (not a country!) is "the state of a certain ethnie," I mean in the way Israel is constituted as the Jewish state or the state of the Jews. More vaguely, I mean like Poland is the state of the Poles or Japan is the state of the Japanese.

Second question: My point is not about protecting our borders. We all want to end mass immigration. My point is about Jewish hypocrisy, or lack thereof, on immigration to Israel and the US.

By the way, I've changed my mind on this question. I'm sure you could find old comments of mine where I do say that pundits like Rubin are hypocrites on American and Israeli immigration. I'm not certain about this question; I admit that I might have been right the first time, but I don't think so.

Mr. Anon said...

"NOTA said...

Anon 3:39

Perhaps it's more useful to evaluate and engage with arguments than decide who's on your team, or who you do and don't like?"

No, it's more useful to figure out who is, and who is not, on my team. Arguments made by those who are not on my team have this salient characteristic: they were made by someone who is not on MY team. They were made to support the cause of THIER team.

Mr. Anon said...

"Aaron Gross said...

In response to two more comments that were not stupid:...."

Yeah, Aaron, our comments are just stupid. Because we notice that pundits of a particular ethnic group turn rhetorical hand-stands defending Israel's closed-door immigration policies while advocating open-door immigration policies for OUR country, we must be stupid.

I can only conclude that your comments, though not stupid - certainly not stupid - are just deceitful.

john marzan said...

listen to jennifer rubin defend israel's "tall walls" and immigration restriction to mickey kaus.

beginning at 51:10 of the podcast

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Left-Coast-Right-Coast-6-Trees-Cause-Pollution

john marzan said...

instead of trying to guess what jennifer rubin believes on immigration and walls for israel and immigration and fencing for USA, listen to this podcast of her explaining her kinda inconsisten views ot mickey kaus

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Left-Coast-Right-Coast-6-Trees-Cause-Pollution

beginning @51:10

Simon in London said...

Me:
"Anyway, I'm in favour of groups seeking to protect their own interests (within reason - no to Hutu genocide of Tutsis, yes to restricting non-Jewish immigration to Israel)"

Anon:
"Therefore also yes Palestinian Gentiles possessing citizenship rights in Israel? And yes to Palestinian refugees reclaiming their land in Israel?"

Palstinians should pursue their own self interest, so yes I'd expect them to demand rights to citizenship and return to Israel. Of course Jewish Israelis would be insane to grant them those rights. I would think the smartest thing for the Palestinians to do in their own interest would be to make peace with the Israelis and campaign peacefully in their own interests, probably by leveraging the left-liberal Israeli Jews' 'anti-racism' etc. The smartest thing for the Israelis to do is keep building their big wall.
Personally I like the Israelis better than the Palestinians, but that certainly doesn't mean I expect Palestinians to operate against their own interests.

Simon in London said...

Aaron Gross:
"By the way, my remarks about David Starkey and Magyarization were sort of directed to you."

It's definitely better to have assimilable immigrants, and assimilate them, than to have non-assimilable immigrants. In Britain and Europe that generally means Muslim south-Asian and Arab immigrants are the worst sort of immigrant; they tend to engage in active ethnic cleansing against the host population and sometimes against rival non-Muslim immigrant populations.
I'm not in favour of mass immigration even by assimilable immigrants though; it tends to lead to population replacement. Eg the 19th century immigrants to New England (Ashkenazi, Italians, Irish, Poles etc) to a large extent assimilated to American culture, but they also largely replaced the original Anglo Yankee settlers across the north-eastern seaboard and midwest cities, just as the Yankee colonials had replaced the Amerindians. Bad news for the displaced Yankees and their few descendants. Early 19th century immigration helped give the Yankees the manpower to defeat the Southerners and win the Civil War, but it also eventually destroyed the Yankee heartlands and ended them as a significant people, whereas the Southerners survived as a cohesive ethny pretty much to the present day (current Latino mass immigration to the South may change that, though).

Anonymous said...

"Anyway, I'm in favour of groups seeking to protect their own interests (within reason - no to Hutu genocide of Tutsis, yes to restricting non-Jewish immigration to Israel)"

Personally I like the Israelis better than the Palestinians, but that certainly doesn't mean I expect Palestinians to operate against their own interests.


And just so we're clear, because you are in favor of groups seeking to protect their own interests, you would be in favor of Palestinians being able to return to Israel?

Svigor said...

I think that Steve Sailer's reading of "posterity" is tendentious - the context is about securing the blessings of liberty - but I don't want to get into that. Even accepting that tendentious reading, it's about securing the liberty of founding-stock Anglo-Saxons, not about securing their position as some 19th-century-style Staatvolk, as the Israeli constitution is about Jews as a Staatvolk.

I think Jews who share this position are tendentious - the context is that Jews form the vanguard of the movement opposing ethnic nationalism for Whites, even as they form the vanguard of the movement securing ethnic nationalism for Jews in Israel.

Jewish pundits in the MSM promote unlimited mass immigration and diversity i.e. national disintegration, for every nation except Israel.

This is plainly a hostile act against the majority population of those nations.


More like, they promote unlimited mass immigration and "diversity" (i.e., national disintegration) for every White "gentile" nation.

They're fine with Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Latin America for Latin Americans, etc.

Anonymous said...

Colloquy between Mickey Kaus and Jennifer Rubin regarding immigration to Israel and the United States:

RUBIN. The reason they won't recognize Israel as "the Jewish state" is that they are refusing to give up on the right of return, the right of every single refugee, their children and grandchildren, to return to Israel. Translated into parlance it means they are going to destroy Israel if not by the bullet, at least by demography.

KAUS: Why don't they believe in open borders Jennifer? It seems that is your position.

RUBIN: [laughter]

KAUS: These people are willing to go to Israel to work and why are they putting these impediments in their way? It's almost as if they are like Tom Tancredo.

RUBIN: Well, it's because they haven't been coming there to work. They've been coming there to blow up pizza parlors and kill children.

KAUS: But even if they came there to work, there would no longer be a Jewish state.

RUBIN: Well, they certainly could. Right now they have people who are coming through checkpoints. Every country in the world, and especially in the Middle East, have people who are coming for work permits and then return. So the issue is not where they are working. The issue is not the labor issue. The issue is, do these people want to kill the inhabitants, which they've been doing.

And we forget the major success and I've got to tell you Mickey this is the greatest argument in the world for building the wall. The greatest success, the greatest help toward defusing violence in the Middle East came when Israel built its wall, it's green [great?] wall....

KAUS: Really?

RUBIN: Tall walls make good neighbors.

KAUS: Walls work. And let the record also show that you are willing to restrict immigration to preserve the ethnic identity of a state and which you would never tolerate in America if Anglo Saxons said, you know, we don't want to become a Latino State, we want to be a non-Latino State, so we have to restrict immigration. You would never tolerate it.

RUBIN: That's because the difference is, America is founded on a different principle. Israel is founded on the principle of being a Jewish state. The Arabs have 22 or 23 of them, or 29 of them, I lose track. Israel was founded on the premise, that's what Zionism is--a state of the Jews. And people don't like it, but that's what it's about. America is not founded on the principle of America for White People or America for Europeans. It is founded really on an idea. And that idea, if people are willing to assimilate, and I'm a big advocate of assimilation, should not be restricted on the basis of race or religion or language, as long as they are willing to eventually learn English and be part of the body politic. It's a completely different situation bw the United States and Israel.

From the podcast John Marzan posted. Discussion begins around 50:00.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Left-Coast-Right-Coast-6-Trees-Cause-Pollution

Anonymous said...

@Aaron Gross

When I say that a state (not a country!) is "the state of a certain ethnie," I mean in the way Israel is constituted as the Jewish state or the state of the Jews. More vaguely, I mean like Poland is the state of the Poles or Japan is the state of the Japanese.

You have pointed to a few countries, but you have hardly explained what you mean when you say a state is "of" a particular group of people. What makes a state "of" a group? If that endeavor is too difficult, maybe tell us what you think the salient commonalities are among Israel, Poland, and Japan.

Simon in London said...

Anon:
"And just so we're clear, because you are in favor of groups seeking to protect their own interests, you would be in favor of Palestinians being able to return to Israel?"

No, I already said I like the Israelis better than the Palestinians, so I don't want that. But if were Palestinian or pro-Palestinian I would support that. The Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs are in competition, they can't both possess the same land.